What are state-reviewed curriculum and professional learning provider lists, and how do they help districts? On July 23, I had the privilege of joining a webinar on these topics hosted by the Collaborative for Student Success and featuring friends and colleagues doing the work across the country. Here are some of the highlights – and you can find the recording and slide deck to dive into all the details here.
Top Takeaways from Each Panelist:
Mine was simple: State support matters. We need to bust some of the myths around state support for curriculum being prescriptive or putting people into a box – when really it’s about giving people informed options.
Eric Hirsch, EdReports: State lists matter, but use matters more. Leaders need to be clear on how the list fits within a broader strategy to improve instruction in a state.
Kiffany Pride, Arkansas Department of Education: I would encourage everyone to start with high-quality materials and professional learning in the same breath, because you need a plan from the very beginning to support teachers once they adopt materials. If you’re trying to run the race a little faster, I would pair those together a little bit quicker.
Micki Ray Marinelli, Kentucky Department of Education: This is really challenging work, but the time and energy and focus to lead as a state is worth it. It’s worth it for teachers. It is absolutely worth it for students, and anything that we can see to promote growth in that area is important and impactful.
Annie Morrison, Rivet: Embrace your role as a change agent. Do not let local control really hinder your ability to influence change in your state, but figure out how you can influence change and progress.
Webinar Q&A
Q: When is it appropriate to support something that’s off the state list and what does that process look like?
Micki: Kentucky has an “off list” notification process. We want to encourage folks to be innovative, but we want to also ensure that it is aligned to the evidence basis. And so districts bear a greater burden to work with the vendor to show us the alignment to the Kentucky Academic standards, as well as to have evidence of external validation beyond just the vendor itself. We have been able to move forward to include some different resources as a result of that process.
Kiffany: In Arkansas we also have a similar process by which districts can submit a rationale for use of a program that we may not have on our list. So districts have that process, but definitely the onus to prove that it aligns to our policy and the practices that we know are important for students to learn to read or learn mathematics or even to think like a scientist with science.
Eric: Delaware has an appeals process that considers information on professional learning and implementation. So in fact, if a district is going to go off-list, it is important to address how you will implement it to potentially address some of the deficiencies that may have kept it off the list. And what is your support plan?
Q: How do you have a strategy for curriculum-based professional learning when multiple curricula are being used?
Annie: Yes, teachers need curriculum-specific training, but there is work that needs to be done at the district and even state level to set the foundation and the enabling conditions for that work to happen. So having clear expectations for what implementation of the curriculum should look like, regardless of what it is, is important, and clearly communicating those expectations to school leaders and teachers is important. You should make sure that your district policies don’t hinder that curriculum; for example, don’t have lesson planning policies that require teachers to create lessons when they already exist in the curriculum. Don’t have grading policies that contradict what’s happening in the curriculum. Especially when you’re using multiple programs, make sure that there is coherence across the board and that all schools and all teachers have the same opportunities to use those curricula effectively.
Q: How are states looking at incentivization, particularly with federal funding cuts and shifts?
Micki: I would look for ways to be able to utilize incentives on things that are funded through state level funds and state level appropriations as well. We are able to have two different grant programs that are supported by state level funding in which we have allowed for not only the adoption of high quality instructional resources, but also the curriculum-based professional learning associated with that. The other thing I would say is to potentially lean into networks or collaboration communities that you have with school and district leaders. Within our Kentucky Early Literacy Leadership Network (KyELLN), curriculum-based professional learning specifically has been an enormous focus of the content. Now we’re able to elevate district bright spots who are the face of that work, and other districts can learn from them, which is powerful.
Q: Where do you see the future use of AI both in evaluating curriculum but also companies and tools that could create potentially district-tailored curriculum?
Eric: We’ve thought a lot about AI in curriculum and what it means for standards mastery and continued innovation within curricula. AI will get the gears of innovation within curriculum moving at speeds we haven’t seen: newer editions, ability to piece things together, ability to customize materials to students and context more easily. I hope as folks think about AI, they’re also thinking about instructional coherence within and across materials, whether they’re tech or not. In the end, teachers on average are using two sets of core materials, five supplements, and almost every teacher utilizes some things they’re creating through AI or not. How those materials come together for a coherent experience for kids and teachers, regardless of the AI piece, will be critical.
Q: In addition to supporting teachers, how can states support school and district leaders?
Kiffany: We have cohorts of leaders who volunteer for this because it’s work they want to do. We work with them around observational tools around the key levers, five impact areas that you can use in your strategies for school support and improvement. We have a cohort of principals giving us key insights into the needs of leaders, whether they’re novice or they’ve been in the profession awhile and need support in recognizing quality implementation and setting goals that make sense to really support their teachers.
Q: What kind of support are districts most frequently asking for right now around curriculum and professional learning?
Annie: I think a lot of schools and districts are doing a good job of providing initial training because a lot of time it comes with the purchase of the curriculum, and a lot of these publishers have really ramped up the quality of their professional learning for that initial launch. And we’re seeing that unfortunately, for different reasons, there isn’t that ongoing professional learning in place to support implementation in the long term. A lot of the support that we see districts really asking for is more of that job-embedded, ongoing support, which is one of the reasons we recently added a coaching and collaborative planning filter to our Professional Learning Partner Guide.
Kiffany: We are trying to make through-year professional learning part of our common vocabulary: it shouldn’t be a beginning of the year or end of the year, but it should be a planned sequence of curriculum-based professional learning that is in the classroom with the teacher. And we’ve really empowered our regions to focus on outcomes-based contracting with vendors to make sure that the outcomes schools are desiring and their best hopes for how teaching and learning happens in their schools are achieved.
Q: What does it mean when a state requires districts to choose from a list of state-vetted instructional materials, and how is Florida’s approach different?
Jocelyn: In states that require districts to use state-vetted materials—like Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Nevada, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia for reading curriculum—districts must select from an approved list or formally request a waiver to use something else, often providing research and justification for the alternative. This requirement is typically outlined in legislation. Florida, while it publishes a recommended list, allows districts to conduct their own review and adoption process without needing a waiver, as long as they follow specific procedures and demonstrate alignment with state standards. This flexibility makes Florida a recommended-list state rather than a required-list one.
Q: How do states make the ‘right curriculum choices’ to support schools serving predominately Native-serving communities?
Eric: While there are no perfect curricula, there are thoughtful, inclusive processes that lead to better decisions. For schools and districts serving Native communities, the “right” curriculum begins with establishing an instructional vision, gathering data to understand local context, student needs, and instructional priorities. States can support these processes by encouraging and ideally supporting thoughtful comprehensive, educator-led adoption processes that include diverse voices, especially those with deep ties to the community. It’s essential to go beyond surface-level information from publishers to closely examine what’s in a curriculum. EdReports is a strong starting point for this work, but it’s essential to go beyond ratings and dig into the review evidence: Where does the curriculum align to your goals? Where might you need to supplement or adapt to reflect local culture, language, and learning experiences? Ultimately, the most effective adoptions happen when local priorities shape the final decision.
Q: What are your thoughts on states who created an HQIM list years ago (i.e. 5 years or more) but have not updated these lists more recently? Are these still providing the best guidance to districts? Many curriculums have been published or adapted in recent years and may be “missed” by these outdated lists.
Micki: In Kentucky, academic standards are reviewed on a 6-year cycle. Our guidance to local superintendents and their curriculum teams is that they should revisit instructional visions and reevaluate instructional materials for alignment to new academic standards. Some resources that may seem outdated may continue to be strongly aligned to state standards, and other newly published materials may lack the external validation that is needed to justify their place on a state list.